ArticleGynecologic oncology2019
Targeted composite value-based endpoints in platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer.
Article in Gynecologic oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Global publication productivity and research trends on recurrent ovarian cancer: a bibliometric study.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Pooled it
- Albumin-bound paclitaxel plus anlotinib in patients with recurrent, platinum-resistant primary epithelial ovarian cancer (A-Plus): a phase II, single-arm, prospective study.Frontiers of medicine · 2025Trial
- Homologous Recombination Abnormalities Associated WithBreast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2023Article
- High-grade serous peritoneal cancer follows a high stromal response signature and shows worse outcome than ovarian cancer.Molecular oncology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFDA-approved treatments for platinum-sensitive recurrent ovarian cancer (PSROC) include bevacizumab and PARP inhibitors (PARPi); clinical decisions regarding therapy must be made prior to initiating chemotherapy. Using the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and European Society of Medical Oncology (ESMO) value frameworks, we assessed relative values of concurrent/maintenance biologic therapies in PSROC.
methodsValue scores were calculated for key maintenance therapies based on randomized controlled trials: bevacizumab (OCEANS, GOG 213); olaparib (Study 19, SOLO2); niraparib (NOVA); rucaparib (ARIEL3). Personalized value scorecards were constructed for patients with germline/somatic-BRCA mutations, homologous recombination deficiency (HRD), and wild-type BRCA (wBRCA). ASCO value scores assess clinical benefit, toxicity, long-term survival, symptom palliation, treatment-free interval, and quality of life (QOL). ESMO value scores assess clinical benefit, toxicity, and QOL.
resultsASCO scores were highest for maintenance PARPi in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts: olaparib (SOLO2) = 47, (Study 19) = 62; niraparib = 50; rucaparib = 54. HRD cohorts had slightly lower scores: niraparib = 46; rucaparib = 37. wBRCA cohorts had the lowest scores: niraparib = 26; rucaparib = 26; and olaparib (Study 19) = 32, as did patients receiving bevacizumab (OCEANS) = 35, (GOG 213) = 26. ESMO scores demonstrated high-value for maintenance PARPi in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts and low-value for bevacizumab and PARPi in wBRCA cohorts.
conclusionsThe value of maintenance PARPi therapy depends heavily on BRCA status, with the highest value scores in germline/somatic-BRCA mutation cohorts. Personalized value scorecards provide a visual aid to assess the harm-benefit balance of maintenance PARPi for PSROC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.